The Linear No-Threshold Model (LNT): Made to Be Tested, Made to Be Questioned. Richard C. Miller, PhD Associate Professor The University of Chicago

Transcription

1 The Linear No-Threshold Model (LNT): Made to Be Tested, Made to Be Questioned Richard C. Miller, PhD Associate Professor The University of Chicago

2 Regulatory Organizations NCRP (Nat l Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements) ICRP (Int l Commission on Radiologic Protection) ICRU (Int l Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements) DOE (Department of Energy) NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) NAS (National Academy of Sciences) UNSCEAR (UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation) EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)

3 The Public s Fear of Radiation Fear vs. Radiation: The Mismatch (NYT 2013) Hiroshima/Nagasaki results: 112K survivors studied (80% exposed/20% control) Nearly 11K died of cancer, 500 estimated to have died from the radiation exposure That s less than 1% deaths from radiation (all doses) <100 msv cause no detectable elevation of illness/disease Fukushima results: 0 deaths attributed to radiation but relocation of individuals from nearby communities to distant locations resulted in >400 deaths.

4 The Precautionary Principle If an agent has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those overseeing the agent. Therefore, use of the linear no threshold model (LNT) is expected to safely address risk when high-dose radiation observable effects are extrapolated downwards to low doses given at low dose rates.

5 The Problem with Studying Radiation Large variability of background radiation. No radiation signature (cancer or heritable effects). Radiation is a poor mutagen/carcinogen. Easy to detect compared to chemicals and other toxic agents so public concern may be easily manipulated.

6 Issues Acute vs chronic doses Epidemiological data is from high doses Low LET Important biological endpoints In utero exposures Cancer induction

7 Data Analysis and Confounding Effects Data available in radiation epidemiology studies Demographic data age, sex, calendar period Data on other risk factors smoking, diet, family history of cancer Radiation exposure data Data available in several huge animal studies

8 Radiation Risk Models Function that relates disease risk (relative or absolute) to exposure (dose) and factors that might modify this risk. Models are developed by analyzing epidemiologic data.

9 Direct Estimates of Risk Relative risk (RR) Excess absolute risk (EAR) Excess relative risk (ERR)

10 Relative Risk (RR) RR is the rate of disease in an exposed population divided by the rate of disease in an unexposed population divided by the rate of disease in an unexposed population (rate in exposed pop/rate in unexposed pop) Relative risk has no units Easier to evaluate than absolute risk Can be estimated from either cohort or case-control studies Useful for Indicating the strength of an association Contributes to establishing causation

11 Excess Relative Risk (ERR) Model ERR is the rate of disease in an exposed population divided by the rate of disease in an unexposed population divided by the rate of disease in an unexposed population, minus 1.0 (rate in exposed pop/rate in unexposed pop) 1.0 Relative risk has no units

12 Excess Relative Risk (BEIR VII, page 148) (rate in exposed pop/rate in unexposed pop) 1.0

13 Excess absolute risk (EAR) model EAR = rate of disease in exposed pop rate of disease in unexposed pop (expressed per population with a time frame) More suitable when there are significant differences between the pop under investigation and the pop on which the model was based. Useful for estimating burden of disease in a population Comparing risks and benefits of interventions/treatments Counseling exposed subjects More difficult to evaluate than the RR Requires cohort data

14 Lifetime Risk (All Solid Cancers) Males Females Excess cases (0.1 Gy) Number of cases (0 dose) 45,500 36,900 Excess deaths (0.1 Gy) Number of deaths (0 dose) 22,100 17,500 per 100,000 individuals (typical US age distribution) Solid cancer risk is based on the linear model

15 Lifetime Risk (Leukemia) Males Females Excess cases (0.1 Gy) Number of cases (0 dose) Excess deaths (0.1 Gy) Number of deaths (0 dose) per 100,000 individuals (typical US age distribution) Leukemia risk is based on the linear-quadratic model

16 Regulatory Issues Deleterious Effects of Radiation In utero exposures (mental retardation) Carcinogenesis (general population) Heritable effects (future generations) 40%/Sv 5%/Sv 0.2%/Sv

17 Radiation exposure data Varies tremendously from study to study Exposed/unexposed Dose estimates for individuals Timing of exposure(s) Characteristics of exposure Dose-rate Internal/External Linear Energy Transfer (LET)

18 Statistical Power The probability that under the assumptions and conditions implicit in the model, it will detect a given level of elevated risk with a specific degree of significance. Depends on size of cohort, length of follow-up, the baseline rates for the disease, distribution of doses within the cohorts.

19 Epidemiological Data Sources Studies from atomic bomb survivors Medical radiation studies Occupational radiation studies Environmental studies

20 Atomic Bomb Survivors The primary epidemiological source for estimating risk at low doses at low dose rates. Life Span Study 120,000 survivors. No radiation induced cancers <100 mgy. Data does not exclude a threshold dose.

21 Medical Radiation Studies BEIR VII examined risk for lung, breast cancer, thyroid cancer, leukemia, and stomach cancer. For most cancers observed at high doses, a linear model worked well. However, at low doses, cancer risk wasn t detectable until exposures exceeded 100 msv.

22 Occupational Radiation In the BEIR VII report, radiation workers in the nuclear industry (400K workers world-wide) showed no increased cancer risk (all cancers including leukemia). Note: The Canadian data initially showed an increase in cancer risk but was re-analyzed and fell in line with the other studies that showed no increase in the cancer risk. Recently, the INWORKS study (BMJ 2015; 351) found a risk of cancer from radiation.

23 Environmental Exposures Populations living in high natural background radiation. Populations exposed to fallout from nuclear accidents. Populations living near nuclear facilities.

24 Extrapolation Models

25 Risk Models (BEIR VII, page 7)

26 Factors that Influence Risk Assessments at Low Dose/Low Dose Rate Radiation-sensitive subpopulations Adaptive response Bystander effects Hyper-radiosensitivity at low doses Genomic instability Hormesis Extrapolation from acute high doses to low doses received at low dose rates

27 Table 1. Data selection by inclusion criteria. Haley BM, Paunesku T, Grdina DJ, Woloschak GE (2015) The Increase in Animal Mortality Risk following Exposure to Sparsely Ionizing Radiation Is Not Linear Quadratic with Dose. PLoS ONE 10(12): e doi: /journal.pone

28 Fig 2. Two possible dose response models based on linear-quadratic model (A) and linear/linear model (B). Haley BM, Paunesku T, Grdina DJ, Woloschak GE (2015) The Increase in Animal Mortality Risk following Exposure to Sparsely Ionizing Radiation Is Not Linear Quadratic with Dose. PLoS ONE 10(12): e doi: /journal.pone

29 Issues Against the LNT The adaptive response can substantially modify the effects of radiation. The bystander (off target) effect has been amply demonstrated. Repair of radiation-induced mutational events is efficient. Apoptosis reduces radiation-induced genetic damage. Hormesis has been demonstrated in epidemiological and laboratory animal studies.

30 Stochastic Effects Includes genetic effects and cancers (subset of somatic effects) Single cell effect and therefore as low as you go with dose, there is still a theoretical possibility of a genetic effect or cancer. There is no threshold dose below which no effect will be visible.

31 Radiation Hormesis Low radiation doses activate the immune system (improved wound healing, increased lymphocyte production, etc). Low doses have been shown to increase the lifespan of animal and humans in multiple studies. Doses below 100 msv in the Japanese A-bomb survivors showed no increase in cancer incidence.

32 Active Research Molecular markers of DNA damage DNA repair fidelity Adaptive response, hypersensitivity, bystander effect, hormesis, genomic instability Mechanistic effects (hormesis, tumor signaling) Genetic factors Heritable genetic effects of radiation Continued epidemiologic studies Review to include additional animal data

33 Valuable Resources for this Presentation David J. Grdina, PhD, Professor, The University of Chicago Health Risks From Exposures to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; Calabrese, Edward J. and O Connor. Estimating Risk of Low Radiation Doses A Critical Review of the BEIR VII Report and its Use of the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) Hypothesis. Radiation Research 182: (2014). Haley, Benjamin M., Paunesku, Tatjana, Grdina, David, J., and Woloschak, Gayle, E. The Increase in Animal Mortality Risk Following Exposure to Sparsely Ionizing Radiation Is Not Linear Quadratic with Dose. PLoS ONE 10(12): (2015).